klos63

I flew out there for the game. Amazing game to be at. I remember on the drive home, the local fans on the radio blaming Steve Young for the loss, saying Montana would have led them on a winning drive and Young doesn't have it. Young threw for almost 500 and ran for another 100 if I remember correctly.

The thing is , we don't yet have a run heavy attack. We may wish to have one, but still a long ways to go. I can't see Manning looking at our O-Line and wanting to play behind it.

I know someone who paid $7K a ticket I remember getting my winning notification that Monday also. Terrible day.

I was making a joke, I should have written 'lol' after my comment. LOL

maybe he took them in because he was concerned that someone might tamper with them if he left them out.

I'm not referring to calls on the field, which every team in the league has been subject to bad ones.

Seriously? That required a league investigation in your opinion?

Please list the many instances where the Bills were unfairly, or promptly disciplined by the league without a full investigation.

Goodell did punish the Patriots in 2007, a first round pick and $$$. In my opinion, this is not a serious breaking of the rules. But they will likely get punished anyway. The NFL should take the punishment duties out of the commissioners office and have a specific person in charge , similar to the NHL. IF the NFL is so serious about the uniformity of the game balls, why is each team allowed to control the balls all week up until just before the game when the refs check the pressure. And why are they put back in control of the team. Also, why does each offense choose their own game balls and why doesn't the league control it for both teams. I don't believe the NFL feels this has a huge effect on the game, but they have a poorly written/enforced rule that will likely change for next season. This is an overblown issue and doesn't greatly alter the outcome of the game.

but between Gordon and Manzel, they really need our 1st round pick. Offense is in a shambles.

i have no idea, just presenting another view. In another extreme, he could have shared a nice bottle of wine over dinner and got tested right after that and failed. Nothing else. I personally doubt that's the story, but who knows.

Could also be a choice, he would rather party than be a professional football player. If he's happy and content. Not self destructive. Free will. Again, not saying i think it's smart, but may not be tragic in his opinion.

I don't know the whole situation, but could be just a rich, twenty something athlete that likes a smoke and a drink now and then. Stupid, because it's ruining his career, but to say it's self destructive might be a stretch.

having a drink isn't necessarily life threatening. No report he was driving under the influence. Basically, since he had a dui in the past, any alcohol positive test is a suspension.

To me this is like driving 65 in a 55. Not really 'breaking the law' in a significant way, and pretty much everybody does and the authorities don't really mind to a point. If the NFL was really concerned that something like this would unfairly alter the course of the game, they would not let each team choose the game balls and be in control of them throughout the game. If all the balls are supposed to be uniform, the league should be in control of each game ball from start to finish and the teams should never touch them except during the game. This doesn't happen, because the league wants the QB's to be comfortable using the game balls because it makes for a better product and I have no problem with that logic. In the pine tar game the umpires ruling was reversed and the home run was restored. The game was continued from that point on at a later date and the Royals won the game. So by your logic, the Patriots get all of their points restored and win the game.

yeah, 30 years ago it happened. Does it happen anymore? Why not do both, make our defense stronger if possible and build up the offense. Winning teams do both.

You are assuming Dareus's agent would agree to a contract which would probably be below market value, and much less then he would get in a year or 2. Signing a player early really doesn't save the team money, just makes things smoother. And players/agents aren't stupid, they aren't going to accept a lesser deal if they know a big payday is around the corner.

I don't know how long you've had season tix, but of all the crap this team has put fans through, THIS is what causes you to give up? Hiring arguably the best defensive mind in football to manage one of the best and most dynamic defenses in the NFL. Really?

He was not better than Richter.

and trade for Nassib too?

I think you take into account much of what has been discussed here. With Marv, take it to account what he started with and was progress being made. With Crossman, management acknowledged he didn't have much to work with, they gave him quality players in year 2 and they were great. I guess the point of my original post was that it's pretty ridiculous to criticize a hire they day they sign, before they even get to meet their players. It takes time, sometimes a couple years in progress.

That's my view as well.

Throughout the past week , I've found it very interesting how most posters react to a hire. It's basically, how the player/players he most recently coached performed, maybe league ranking, but really not much of a thought out critique encompassing factors such as player quality, team quality, full body of work, the situation they will be coming into.... Roman for example was a hot commodity 2 years ago for a head coach after Kaepernicks great Super Bowl season, now since he took a step back this year, some think Roman is a bad choice. I seems like those who want to criticize the hire will find one negative and attribute it to the new hire and condemn it. Would like to know your thoughts on a fair way to assess a new hire.